But we already have a liturgy, and a very nice one at that. Furthermore, these liturgies are not the customs of culture that has converted to Orthodxy, they are customs of a culture that is foreign to Orthodoxy. And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church.

I'm open to being proven wrong, but I find it highly unlikely that previous customs that have been baptized into the Church were adopted after the culture had converted in its entirely. It's far more probable that they were baptized as part of the process of converting the culture, not after the task was finished.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

"Quite true, but perhaps if we can get them on a theologically-correct path, they'll find their way home to the Divine Liturgy."I think I'm going to throw up.The more Orthodox I become, the more I love Her western liturgies.

"And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church."Your liturgy is nice, I've been going to it since I moved, but I still like the WR liturgies more. Orthodoxy has been influenced by her surrounding culture since the very begining. If not, Russia and Greece would look a lot alike. And come on, no one wants to be like the Greeks but the Greeks.

"And we have no need of the imposition of foreign cultures on our Church."Your liturgy is nice, I've been going to it since I moved, but I still like the WR liturgies more. Orthodoxy has been influenced by her surrounding culture since the very begining. If not, Russia and Greece would look a lot alike. And come on, no one wants to be like the Greeks but the Greeks.

Ah, but look at the Russian liturgy, it is essentially the same as the Greek liturgy, they just have strange looking clothes and sing funny. That is fundamentally different than adopting a foriegn religious rite in its entirety and making a few minor changes to make the theology at least palatable.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

As opposed to, oh, I don't know, adopting a pagan religious rite in its entirety and making some major changes to make the theology palatable?

Ah, but these were pagan religious rites indigenous to a culture (Greek Culture) that converted nearly in its entirety. Thus it was a natural and organic growth within the Church. Now the same could be said for the Anglican services IF the whole of England converted to Orthodoxy and Canterbury entered into communion with Constantinople. But until such time a better analogy would be if we were to adopt ancestor worship because two or three chinese converted to Orthodoxy.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

My basic POV: make use of Western Rite if parishes of Western Christians want to come over en masse and pastorally need it, or if there is a specific missionary reason in a specific circumstance to use it;

My basic POV: make use of Western Rite if parishes of Western Christians want to come over en masse and pastorally need it, or if there is a specific missionary reason in a specific circumstance to use it;

As much as I love the Western liturgical tradition, I think its days of being an effective missionary tool, other than in the limited circumstances Anastasios mentioned, are waning. My generation didn't grow up with the Tridentine Mass, so other than a handful of REALLY High Church Anglicans and Latin Mass Catholic - the Orthodox Western rite is just as foreign as the Byzantine rite.

I have no issue with the WR, but the idea that it would be some kind of missionary tool to me is absurd. It's the province of a certain crowd of liturgical enthusiasts (and I don't have a problem with that either).

I have no issue with the WR, but the idea that it would be some kind of missionary tool to me is absurd. It's the province of a certain crowd of liturgical enthusiasts (and I don't have a problem with that either).

It's not that absurd, given that its a natural for Romans and high-church Protestants who are attracted to Orthodoxy but turned off by the "eastern-ness" of it. If I had been presented with the option to attend a WR parish when converting from Anglicanism, it would have been a no-brainer.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 02:37:59 PM by Veniamin »

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

It's not that absurd, given that its a natural for Romans and high-church Protestants who are attracted to Orthodoxy but turned off by the "eastern-ness" of it. If I had been presented with the option to attend a WR parish when converting from Anglicanism, it would have been a no-brainer.

I have two theories about this.

- The overwhelming majority of those who convert are attracted to the Easterness of it, and thus the WR is never going to be an effective missionary tool.

- People who are attracted to the WR it seems to me would probably be happy remaining Anglicans or Catholics if their own bishops had not gone wacko. It is a different type of attraction than for those who go Byzantine.

Anyhow, believe me, I'm not putting down the WR and I wish them all possible success. There's just no way it ever could have been or ever will be a missionary tool. It's a liturgical interest group, and something that will only hold an attraction for a small group of people.

- The overwhelming majority of those who convert are attracted to the Easterness of it, and thus the WR is never going to be an effective missionary tool.

I was certainly attracted to the easterness of it but is that a valid reason to convert in the same vein?

Quote

- People who are attracted to the WR it seems to me would probably be happy remaining Anglicans or Catholics if their own bishops had not gone wacko. It is a different type of attraction than for those who go Byzantine.

Perhaps. I certainly know you are right about some of these people. But I think you are overstating your case and generalizing. I do know some sincere Western Christians who DO believe their bishops were heretics and thus became Orthodox, but loved their liturgy and could not give it up. Why make more burdens for them?

Quote

Anyhow, believe me, I'm not putting down the WR and I wish them all possible success. There's just no way it ever could have been or ever will be a missionary tool. It's a liturgical interest group, and something that will only hold an attraction for a small group of people.

Yes, it may be true that it is of small interest, but for those who are of that mind, it is an effective missionary tool. Before the Antiochians picked up the EOC, the WR was envisioned as their missionary arm and they were able to get some solid congregations through it.

FWIW, this year has seen two congregations come home via the WR. One Anglican bishop in VA, and an Episcopal priest in Houston. They are small groups, but Jesus started with 12. And a Lutheran minister in the midwest has came home- he is interrested in the WR, but only time will tell what happens.

There is one argument that has been used over and over on this site that I don't understand. Why does conversion in masse make a difference in the liturgy that can be used? And what is the difference between people who convert because they think the eastern DL is cool and the people who convert because they think the western DL is cool? I think many come for the wrong reasons and stay for the right ones.

There is one argument that has been used over and over on this site that I don't understand. Why does conversion in masse make a difference in the liturgy that can be used?

Because there is something to be said for liturgical unity in a diocese, and our patriarchates all use the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom as the received liturgy. It is artificial for us to try to start and support WR missions--it can easily end up looking vagante, and in fact often did when people broke off. However, if real, organic communities of Western Christians come over, they can bring a real environment to the mix that will make the liturgy work in context.

Quote

And what is the difference between people who convert because they think the eastern DL is cool and the people who convert because they think the western DL is cool? I think many come for the wrong reasons and stay for the right ones.

I think the perception is that some convert to the WR and never abandon their Western heretical ideas. From personal experience, I know this to often be true. Some are chrismated as a pro forma act and continue to be Anglican or Catholic in their beliefs. However, I do not in any way intend or mean to begrudge the many other WR Orthodox who ARE Orthodox completely.

As for people who convert because the DL is cool, like I said, I don't exactly think that is the best reason to convert LOL. After all, sometimes we get Eastern Catholics coming over because we are "less latinized." That to me is just as bad as Anglicans becoming WR and keeping Anglican beliefs.

I was certainly attracted to the easterness of it but is that a valid reason to convert in the same vein?

What do you mean? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying there.

Quote

But I think you are overstating your case and generalizing. I do know some sincere Western Christians who DO believe their bishops were heretics and thus became Orthodox, but loved their liturgy and could not give it up. Why make more burdens for them?

I am generalizing, but I would still be willing to bet that if the Anglican/Episcopal Church hadn't gone off the rails, most of the WR people would never consider conversion. The bishops have though, so that's just a moot point anyway.

Personally, I don't advocate putting barriers in their way. I have no issue with the WR as I've said. I would attend one of their services if I was ever near where one was held.

Quote

Yes, it may be true that it is of small interest, but for those who are of that mind, it is an effective missionary tool. Before the Antiochians picked up the EOC, the WR was envisioned as their missionary arm and they were able to get some solid congregations through it.

I just don't think there will be that many that will follow. It's just my feeling.

I think the main reason they will never really be an effective missionary tool, aside from the reasons I stated, is I doubt they will ever have their own hierarchy. I believe they will be under the care, guidance and whims of Byzantine bishops. One need only look at the Eastern Catholics to see what that can lead to.

Another consideration is that for many of us who reject the modern liturgical theology floating around, liturgies did not develop primarily out of happenstance, but rather by being guided by the Lord himself, so the Byzantine Rite winning out over other liturgies being used in the Chalcedonian Church was part of some unknown providence. Therefore, reintroducing liturgies that are not used organically is beyond our authority, but if a community comes to Orthodox that uses said liturgy organically, that is a valid reason. To create a new community not used to that organic liturgy would be going against the historical development of the liturgy by the hand of God, while of course I would not want to be dogmatic and say it should never happen because there may be like I said reasons to do it for the good of the faithful.

This is puzzling to me. Since many Orthodox view the supplices te rogamus as an equivalent to the epiclesis, wouldn't the epiclesis be viewed as being superfluous in this instance?

BTW, does your parish have a website with pics? I'd like to see them. If you don't want to share with everyone here, perhaps you could PM me?

JB

JB,

Not being a liturgical expert, I can't really comment on the possible superfluity of the epiclesis from a liturgical standpoint. I would say that from an historical perspective, however, since the pre-schism Roman canon was the same as the Tridentine canon adapted for use in the Rite of St. Gregory, the insertion of the epiclesis was not strictly necessary to "make it Orthodox". Then there is also the ceremonial incongruity of the elevations and adoration taking place within the Institution narrative but before the epiclesis, which I think is pretty common in Western rite Orthodox parishes.

There is at least one other change that was made in the canon for the Rite of St. Gregory - "merits" was dropped from the translation of the last line of the Communicantes so that it reads, "through whose prayers grant that in all things we may be guarded by the help of thy protection." A more accurate translation of the Latin original is, "for the sake of whose merits and prayers do thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of thy protection." Even the ICEL translation of the Novus Ordo Roman Canon retains "merits". I think "merits" was also in the pre-schism canon.

Here is the URL for our parish web site. It has a link to some pictures.

However, if real, organic communities of Western Christians come over, they can bring a real environment to the mix that will make the liturgy work in context.

I've seen this happen, and, to bring back the specific example from a few pages ago, St. Peter's here in Ft. Worth is a good example of this. I've talked with folks who've attended other WR parishes and have said that those parishes are Orthodox in name only. I'm convinced that Fr. Anthony (of St. Peter's) is deliberate in his efforts to emphasize that they are not Episcopalian; they are not Catholic; they are Orthodox--and he's not talking to any Greek bishop who's naysaying out there; he's laying down the gauntlet to his own flock, making it clear what and who they are. It's sad that not all WR parishes do this.

I have to say, when I first became Orthodox, I did so in spite of the Byzantine tones, liturgics, etc. I did so because the true faith was within this communion, and that's it. I knew I had to take the wrapping with the package, in other words. When my wife and I moved to Ft. Worth, I (due to my stopovers in western liturgical churches on my way to Orthodoxy) was ready to join St. Peter's. My wife--who had had no such stopovers--asked if we could also visit some ER churches. We wound up at the OCA parish we've called home for four and a half years--she got to stay consistent in rite, and I was able to settle in easily to the much-more-palatable-to-western-ears Russian tones--and, oddly enough...I prefer ER now. I'll say in a heartbeat that I still love the WR presence in the Church--may God grant them growth and many, many years!--and I can slip right into worship at St. Peter's without even blinking, but the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is "my" liturgy now.

Perhaps, should God grant, a western rite vicar will eventually be a bishop of sorts over the AWRV--this would, I would think, lead to much more uniformity and unity of identity and purpose within the vicariate--but until then, our brothers and sisters who share the same faith, the same creed and the same chalice as we ER-ers have to blaze a trail that may not always be convenient or pleasing to us. They need, I think, our patience and compassion during this time of trial; they do not need our suspicion or unfounded nitpicking.

It is not a question of something being "wrong" with the EO liturgy but that such a service does not necessarily work with every human being and why should it. God made every person unique; we are not cookie cutter images. I am one such person. I have been to many EO services and I cannot worship there the way I can in an Anglican one.

Quote

But the idea of compromising Orthodox Tradition to make it more American compatable should not be considered.

What is "compromising" and what is adapting or adjusting or to use someone else's words "baptizing" the culture? What of 't' vs 'T' tradition?

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Have you ever participated in one of these liturgies, Ebor or anyone else? If you did, what was your impression?

Yes, I have been to a WR service or two. Such parishes are thin on the ground as you probably know. There were familiar hymns and prayers and structures. There were a few bits that were different, but that did not faze me as the Book of Common Prayer has 4 different Eucharistic prayers and in the parishes I've been in they often change with the liturgical seasons (along with the vestment colours )

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

- The overwhelming majority of those who convert are attracted to the Easterness of it, and thus the WR is never going to be an effective missionary tool.

- People who are attracted to the WR it seems to me would probably be happy remaining Anglicans or Catholics if their own bishops had not gone wacko. It is a different type of attraction than for those who go Byzantine.

Well, in that is another aspect... are some people going *TO* EO or going *AWAY* from where they were. There is a difference.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Quite true, but perhaps if we can get them on a theologically-correct path, they'll find their way home to the Divine Liturgy.

Speaking at least for myself, the EO liturgy is not "home" for me and never will be. It cannot be "home" because I have never lived there nor was it part of my ancesors. If at some point in the future the only place was EO it would be a place but not Home...

It would be an exile.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept,..." Psalm 137

Ebor

My apologies. I'm feeling a bit grim at the moment. I'll take a break before reading the threads on the most recent developements in my Church and the parishes in Virginia.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 06:01:37 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Speaking at least for myself, the EO liturgy is not "home" for me and never will be. It cannot be "home" because I have never lived there nor was it part of my ancesors. If at some point in the future the only place was EO it would be a place but not Home...

It would be an exile.

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept,..." Psalm 137

Ebor

My apologies. I'm feeling a bit grim at the moment. I'll take a break before reading the threads on the most recent developements in my Church and the parishes in Virginia.

You have my sympathies. One good thing---at the very least, they will remain in the Anglican Communion.

On the matter of this thread, I am with you. I grew up loving the Byzantines and I very much appreciate and respect Eastern Christianity, but I myself am thoroughly Western liturgically, culturally and theologically. I couldn't imagine being otherwise.

(Referring back to the last post on page 5). In the early stages of my journey, I too was attracted to Russian Orthodoxy because it resonated with my western ears (not to mention a loving priest). That is where I ended up. But there is an Antiochian parish and priest who are dear to my heart and a Greek parish that I admire but is just too big to have tried to integrate into at the time.

The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is likewise "my" liturgy now.

Regarding the page 6 sentiments of this thread, I feel schizo; there is a very intuitive part of me that is so at home, in love with and finally at peace in the Eastern ethos, dogma and liturgy. And there is a rationalistic side of me that thinks in very western theological categories. And there is nothing, especially at Christmas, like a "tall steeple" Presbyterian church with a great choir and paid brass quartet! The hymnology of the Reformed and Methodist churches is very strong aesthetically and lyrically.

Speaking at least for myself, the EO liturgy is not "home" for me and never will be. It cannot be "home" because I have never lived there nor was it part of my ancesors. If at some point in the future the only place was EO it would be a place but not Home...

It would be an exile.

But would it not also be artificial for you to be under an Eastern Patriarch using a western liturgy, being completely divorced from the entire liturgical tradition of your Bishop? The western liturgies have a place, under the western Bishops, be they of Rome or Canterbury; and just as it is most inappropraite for Rome to have churches with eastern liturgies, so is it inappropriate for the Orthodox to have western liturgies.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I'm wondering what some of you anti-Western Rite people (GiC first of all, of course) think of this article. Please, take the arguement of the article and not the disagreement with his Eminence of Blessed Memory, Metropolitan Athony of SF.

I see nothing wrong with having a bishopb administer two rites, his own, and that of another ppl still orthodox but of another rite. There is a Chinese Catholic church in my city which attracts lots of attention from chinese and non-chinese. The church is shaped like a chinese building but there is a cross and a statue of the Virgin Mary on the front lawn. Why couldn't we have a Chinese Orthodox Church in America? They would use their own rite no?

But would it not also be artificial for you to be under an Eastern Patriarch using a western liturgy, being completely divorced from the entire liturgical tradition of your Bishop?

I am pondering this question and I'm afraid that I don't quite get what you're driving at. My apologies for being a bit thick. Is it that there is an idea that all must be alike under a bishop or archbishop? Why would this be so, if that is your meaning? "Completely divorced"? Being Christian there would be some relation, I should think, but again I'm not quite catching your idea.

In the Anglican Churches we have a number of liturgies and services in which there is some leeway according to the rubrics in how things are done, some higher, some simpler. Depending on where one is there are also local differences, I have a New Zealand Book of Common Prayer as well as ones from the US, England and Scotland. There is a common frame but within that there are differences based on the local culture and people.

Quote

The western liturgies have a place, under the western Bishops, be they of Rome or Canterbury; and just as it is most inappropraite for Rome to have churches with eastern liturgies, so is it inappropriate for the Orthodox to have western liturgies.

Well, then that might suggest that EO is not for every human being. As to it being inappropriate for Rome to have the Byzantine Catholic parishs, I don't have a dog in that hunt as the saying goes so it is not my place to speak of that of which I know little.

I'll get more coffee and see if I can understand more what you're saying.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I see nothing wrong with having a bishopb administer two rites, his own, and that of another ppl still orthodox but of another rite. There is a Chinese Catholic church in my city which attracts lots of attention from chinese and non-chinese. The church is shaped like a chinese building but there is a cross and a statue of the Virgin Mary on the front lawn. Why couldn't we have a Chinese Orthodox Church in America? They would use their own rite no?

In my area we have a Vietnamese Catholic parish with nice asian architecture in which one of their customs from that country was that when the bishop visited (for the consecration it might have been) he was carried in on a kind of palanquin. The RC bishop did so, out of respect for the people, but I think he was a little non-plussed.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis